*Situation* in RPGing (with In A Wicked Age as an illustration)

[pemerton]

This slightly meandering post is prompted by playing a session of In A Wicked Age today. When we were discussing the session afterwards, @thefutilist pointed me to an old Vincent Baker blog: anyway: Creating Situation: a practical example

The best line from the blog is actually in one of the replies to a commenter:

Marhault (Jamey): How do you produce a dynamic situation where the PCs aren't already an integral part of it?​

​

How do you make spinach quiche where you leave the spinach in a bag in the fridge?​

In A Wicked Age has has a very fun approach to establishing characters and situation, that makes sure that the spinach isn't left in a bag in the fridge. As per this summary I wrote several years ago now:

The "worldbuilding" is fun - turn up 4 cards and read off "the oracles". There are four possible oracles to choose from - Blood & Sex, God-kings of War, the Unquiet Past, and a Nest of Vipers.

<snip>

come up with the characters (express and implicit) in this situation.

<snip>

The final stage was nominating "best interests" for the characters.

The premise is not dictated by the game per se, but emerges out of the setting elements plus players' choices of best interests. The obvious themes are love, hate, revenge, war, sex. This emerges from the "oracles", and also the six stats (For Self, For Others, With Love, With Violence, Directly, Covertly). So when the elements are chosen, and the players identify and build PCs, and then choose best interests, and the GM starts framing - well, premise emerges.

Today we used The Unquiet Past, and our oracles were:

1S: A slow-moving caravan with many wagons and travelers.​

​

QD: The fey and unfriendly guardians of an enchanted glade.​

​

3H: The guardian of a tomb, a statue cast in silver with ruby eyes​

​

7C: A ruthless bully of an under-officer with high ambitions.​

Out of that we got about 10 characters, ending up with 3 PCs and 4 NPCs. I played Nardeen, priest of the tomb of Amala:

Covertly d8​

Directly d6​

For myself d10​

For others d6​

With love d12​

With violence d4​

Particular strength - spoken prayer to ward off evil (requires calling loudly upon the gods): for others d8, directly d8​

Best interests: To bring Amala (the dead God Queen in the tomb) back to life; To have Aram (a new recruit, badly bullied) defeat Balashi (the tomb guardian); To have Romrama (the caravan leader) and the caravan move on.​

But (as is obvious, I guess) making sure you got the bag of spinach out of the fridge is a necessary but not sufficient condition of making your quiche. There's a particular feature of In A Wicked Age that I think really brings this to the fore. In my old write-up, I characterised it as a problem in the way the system approaches conflict resolution:

the stakes are set by the system, and are rather modest (a drop in die size to two of six stats), unless their is negotiation. So unlike DitV, or a 4e skill challenge, there is no concrete thing that is stakes - a loser can always hold out and just take the default consequence. And unlike DitV or Poison'd (the latter a Vincent Baker game I've read but not played), there is no escalation mechanic.

What incentivises negotiation, to an extent, is the fact that the session ends when a PC emerges as the clear protagonist and/or as having resolved his/her "best interests" (this is a table call guided by the GM), and there is no guarantee that you can carry your PC forward to another session, so if you want to finish successfully you're going to have to negotiate. Still, it felt a little weak.

I don't know if I'd still call it a problem, but it does mean that the relationship between framed scene, fictional position at the end of a conflict, best interests, and what the system allows for needs to be pretty tight, so that negotiations can be offered that will be taken up, and play doesn't bog down in repeated attrition-esque conflicts.

Page 7 of the rulebook says this, about writing best interests:

Going into this, you won’t have much or any backstory. That’s fine; don’t plan or speculate. Instead, watch the backstory emerge. Let the characters’ best interests show you what’s been going on between them up to now. . . . If someone names a best interest for her character and you can’t see it immediately, you may, if you need to, ask why. Why is that in her best interests? Don’t make this​

a challenge, though; if she answers you it’s to help you understand, not because she must or because she has to win your assent to what she’s said. If she shrugs and says, “we’ll find out I guess,” you have to content yourself with that. No discussing, no contradicting, no second-guessing.​

​

At the end, you should have a situation not easily untangled and about to turn really bad. Some of the characters will be able to achieve their interests, conceivably, but only by fighting and meaning it, and only by taking other characters’ best interests away. Dedicated rivals, aggressive enemies, and alliances fragile at best.​

And then the advice to the GM on how to frame scenes (p 11) emphasises characters wanting to do harm to one another, either because they begin in conflict, or because the GM draws a conflict between them out of their conflicting best interests. This emphasis dovetails, fairly tightly, with the conflict resolution rules which state (p 12) that you must:

Roll dice when one character undertakes to do some concrete thing, and another character can and would try to interfere. . . . Don’t roll dice when two characters are having a conversation, no matter how heated it becomes; wait until one or the other acts. . . . Don’t roll dice when a character undertakes to do some concrete thing and no other character can or would try to interfere.​

I think I could have written better best interests. The first one I think was good; it was loosely inspired by the example in the rulebook (p 7), of the character whose best interests are "to stay hidden, especially from the boy who loves her, until she reaches the shrine and is married" to the dead stone effigy of a harvest god, and "to become pregnant by the harvest god (and not by any other!)." In that example, the harvest god is not a character; and in our session Amal was not a character.

The reason I say that it was good is that it created some immediate conflict: with the NPC Balashi the Tomb Guardian, and with the NPC tomb robber. And possibly with PCs as well, depending on their orientation towards the tomb and the dead and buried Amal. It gave other characters a reason to take concrete actions against me; a reason that I might want to take concrete action against them; and something which might lead me to yield to a compromise.

But my other two were not as good. One was about getting another PC - Aram - to do something to the NPC Balashi. It's threatening Balashi, but my first best interest already does that. And it's not clearly threatening Aram. Something in the same neighbourhood, but better, would have been simply to have as a best interest something like to make Aram serve me.

My final best interest was about making another NPC, Romrama, do something. In a game without social conflict, it's too close to a desire to persuade. I think it would have been better as something like to drive Romrama and the caravan away from the tomb, or even to drive Romrama and the caravan away from the tomb, by making it untenable for them to stay camped beside it. Something like this seems as if it would have been better for pushing towards concrete acts.

In the blog I linked to above, Baker quotes Ron Edwards to the effect that a situation is "Dynamic interaction between specific characters and small-scale setting element", and then goes on:

Dynamic interactions are interactions that can't stay the same indefinitely. Most practically? Dynamic interactions have, at their heart, conflicts of interest.

"What are their dynamic interactions?" means: create conflicts of interest between them.

<snip an example of giving characters best interests>

Now if you'll notice, I'm cheating. I'm cheating like a cheating dog pig. I'm not just giving the characters interests - "her interest is to avoid interaction with anyone" - I'm giving the characters interests that are already all grabby with conflict.​

In a game system that doesn't use social conflict resolution, conflicts that are purely social won't be very "grabby", and so won't do a very good job of driving play. For a game whose rules run for about 20 pages, including a sustained worked example, In A Wicked Age is strikingly nuanced in what it requires players to do as part of the setting up of situation. Next time I play In A Wicked Age, I need to remember to write best interests that motivate concrete acts of doing harm to another character. Not just trying to persuade them of things.

 

[Tigris]

Maybe I understand it wrong, but in short your 2nd and 3rd goals are not good because they dont cause harm to others?


This for me sounds more like a competitive social deduction game than an RPG (which also means its more unique thats nice.) However, then I gind it a bit strange that you reveal your goals to one another.


I dont think its a game I would enjoy, but good for more variety.


Anyway I do think one does not need necessarily to get your conclusion "my goals must hurt people". Since just because talking does not include rolls, only action does, does not mean talking cant be used to reach your goals.


Yes you cant roll a persuasion to force someone to do what you want, but you can still bring arguments to someone to maybe persuade them to then go on. Or the other player to fight the guard by telling them you help them.


Also youe "nice goals" might still conflict with other players goals and cause friction. You might want the caravan to go on, maybe another player wants the carravan to not go on.


Also here I think, especially with non hurting goals, it could be a lot of fun to not know other players goals. Because then there may be potential conflict even though you want the same but you dont trust each other.

 

[pemerton]

This for me sounds more like a competitive social deduction game than an RPG (which also means its more unique thats nice.) However, then I gind it a bit strange that you reveal your goals to one another.

It's not part of the game to puzzle out best interests. These are public: the game depends upon everyone knowing what the situation is. There's no hidden board. (Unlike, say, classic dungeon-crawling D&D.)

Maybe I understand it wrong, but in short your 2nd and 3rd goals are not good because they dont cause harm to others?

For the game to work, me (as my character) pursuing my (character's) best interests needs to open up the likelihood of concrete acts that someone else will interfere with because those concrete acts would set back their interests (ie "harm" them).

For instance: trying to get past the Tomb Guardian to the buried Amala is a concrete act, that Balashi the Tomb Guardian will want to oppose.

But trying to make Romrama move on an easily become just talking. And talking, on its own, doesn't make the game "go". Whereas making life for Romrama and the caravan miserable, as long as they stay camped near the tomb, does more obviously suggest concrete acts.

Since just because talking does not include rolls, only action does, does not mean talking cant be used to reach your goals.

<snip>

Yes you cant roll a persuasion to force someone to do what you want, but you can still bring arguments to someone to maybe persuade them to then go on. Or the other player to fight the guard by telling them you help them.

This is negotiation without leverage. The conflict system - based around "concrete acts" - sets up negotiation with leverage, and so creates a bit more impetus towards winners and losers.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

For the game to work, me (as my character) pursuing my (character's) best interests needs to open up the likelihood of concrete acts that someone else will interfere with because those concrete acts would set back their interests (ie "harm" them).

For instance: trying to get past the Tomb Guardian to the buried Amala is a concrete act, that Balashi the Tomb Guardian will want to oppose.

But trying to make Romrama move on an easily become just talking. And talking, on its own, doesn't make the game "go". Whereas making life for Romrama and the caravan miserable, as long as they stay camped near the tomb, does more obviously suggest concrete acts.

Yeah, I think there's a requirement for potential physical action in the drafting of best interests that is both obvious in retrospect and obvious when the text gets put together (as you've done in the OP) that I didn't quite grok until after play. The best interests I drafted for Aram -- (1) To avoid additional entanglements and free myself of obligations, and (2) To ensure Javid (superior officer) does Nardeen's bidding -- were suggestive of approaches to situations but didn't necessarily encourage specific actions themselves.

The first one was playable inasmuch as I always had something guiding my choices, but it would've been much better with a sharper point -- how is Aram going to do this and who is going to bear the brunt of that action? It would've been stronger had I gone with something like to free myself of servitude by humiliating Javid. We quickly established that Javid had both wiped out Aram's village and forced him into service. I didn't go far enough in establishing what Javid has done to Aram to inspire this overwhelming desire to get away (Javid slapping him was insulting but not insulting enough, and I played my response in a this has happened before, and I'm not going to give you the pleasure of a reaction mode, which is fine, but it should have been firmer, more try that again and see what happens).

The second was weird and didn't work -- I think it was both not active enough and hitting the same beat as the first one (they both pointed at Javid). If I were writing it again, anything that tied Aram more clearly to one of the other PCs or NPCs and also conflicted with his desire to get out would have been better. I mean, Nardeen's there, but only incidentally. Nardeen could've been Romrana or Damon, and it wouldn't change the sense of it at all.

 

[thefutilist]

@pemerton It’s complex. Here’s my take.

The game wasn’t that good but so many things were a bit off that it’s hard to diagnose any given part individually. Me not knowing how the multi-part conflict worked was a big deal and at some point I became overwhelmed and my basic orchestration (scene framing) totally crashed out.



From the start though.

IAWA best interests aren’t necessarily diegetic. They act as a way to mutually alert us that there is ‘potential’ conflict and as a way to set scenes.

I was afraid of being too Viking hat and exerting my authority and I’m still a bit ambivalent about how hard I should have gone.



The latter messed up proper establishment of the former. What I should have done is be far more clear on the meta about what Javid wanted and what Arams response entailed. Javid was basically saying, I’ll stop bullying you if you mess with Damon. We needed a clear answer to that and a line of action. It could have been ‘screw you Javid’ and maybe Javid then tries to beat Aram half to death. It could have been ‘yeah ok’ and now we see what Aram is going to do.

The interaction between Nardeen and Aram barely made sense. There wasn’t enough concrete fictional establishment. In that regard ‘make Aram serve me’ might have been a better best interest. Even with the one Nardeen had though, the framing needed to make real the actual circumstances and it’s the actual circumstances that supersede the best interests.

Which is another important part. The best interests establish the situation but they really aren’t part of it or binding in anyway. If I was harder with my framing, then lets say Aram HAD decided he needed to take Damon down a peg or too. My next scene could be. Night has fallen and the camp is celebrating. Nardeen you’re scouring the camp looking for patsies and sitting by themselves, deep in thought, is this put upon young soldier.

We’re now in a far stronger position for there to be conflict. Does Aram listen to whatever messed up plan Nardeen has?



The exact same thing with Zahri. Let’s say Javid does beat Aram half to death. Zahri happens upon him, we establish what their relationship is (establish mutual backstory) and depending how the scene plays out maybe Zahri suggest they both rob the tomb and then get away together, leaving Javid and the Carvan behind.

Same thing with Balashi and Nardeen. We only needed a short scene and it might not have hit any conflict at all but we could probably establish that Nardeen is in love with Amala.


Assuming that had happened and Aram and Zahri decided to rob the tomb. Then we can see loads of ways this plays out:

Maybe Nardeen discovers them, flat out tells them he’s in love, Aram and Zahri have got some kind of budding relationship so a deal is cut. They team up against Balashi. Zahri and Aram take the eye and Nardeen resurrects the god queen. Or Balashi slaughters all of them. Or Balashi slaughters Nardeen and is taken down in turn. The young couple then inter Nardeens bones alongside Amala’s and there is a kind of ironic ending where Nardeen kind of gets what he wants just not in the way he thought.



Now in actual play you’re sometimes just going to get dropped threads. I shorted Aram because I was overwhelmed but really Aram should have had more of a chance to go at Javid. Even if the conflict played out like it did. When Aram exited the tomb, I should have asked him whether he was going after Javid or not.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Now in actual play you’re sometimes just going to get dropped threads. I shorted Aram because I was overwhelmed but really Aram should have had more of a chance to go at Javid. Even if the conflict played out like it did. When Aram exited the tomb, I should have asked him whether he was going after Javid or not.

For what it's worth, I can see shorting Aram at the end regardless -- we hadn't given Javid much thought since the beginning and all the play was being drawn towards the tomb. In that case, I'm not sure it's terrifically important what happens to secondary, comedic characters -- like, Aram can get killed or run off into the desert, but it's only important which happens from a thematic standpoint and maybe not even then. In terms of play, I hadn't done anything that would have warranted spending another second on Aram. His story was done and wasn't going to get more interesting if we spent more time on him.